4 ms·

I dont think the pedestrian getting hit cares whether the car is 2,999lbs or 3,0001lbs.

by camdat 3y ago

pc86 3y ago
I mean this is obviously false. The heavier a vehicle is, the slower it needs to be going to cause a certain amount of damage, up to and including death. How many pedestrians are hit every year? If you can lower the average weight of vehicles on the road you're directly saving lives.
- tm-guimaraes 3y ago
  not only that, but the height of the vehicle front also matters A LOT. A SUV is perfect for killing pedestrians, it has the perfect triple combo: * Weight * raised front to perfectly shatter a chest * low visibility for the perfect "i didn't saw him" excuse.
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    The couple drivers I'd have to avoid as a pedestrian explained to me that they were not looking in the direction of travel. So I can't see what height or visibility would matter.
    - Symbiote 3y ago
      It's in the comment you're replying to > raised front to perfectly shatter a chest An SUV, pickup truck etc will hit an adult in the chest, and a child in the head, flinging them into the ground. That's often fatal. A sedan, station wagon, sports car etc will hit the person in the legs, scooping/rolling them over/around the car. This is less often fatal.
- camdat 3y ago
  This assumes two vehicles of similar dimensions. An aerodynamic 3,001lb vehicle would be much preferable to me than a 2,999lb flat-front. The physics imply only a portion of the heavier vehicles energy is imparted to me. I don't make the comment to argue that weight isn't meaningful, but to say that "lethality" of a vehicle has many factors.
  - pc86 3y ago
    Yes it does, because we're talking about regulations that would cap the size of vehicle classes. You're not going to turn a 6,000lb F-150 into a 2,999lb truck, but you can shave 50 or 60 pounds off a vehicle. All else being equal, lighter = less deadly. That's all I'm saying.
sidewndr46 3y ago
I always think the same thing about federal gun restrictions in the US. I can't imagine someone getting shot and thinking "I'm so glad he didn't shoot me with a barrel shorter than 16 inches!!!"
- tm-guimaraes 3y ago
  the differencing between breaking a leg and dying are kinda big... Weight and frontal height are deciding factors on that.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  Clearly the barrel-length restrictions were intended to be about how easy they are to conceal. There was an attempt to draw a distinction between long-guns and hand-guns. The NFA ended up exempting pistols, which results in the strange situation where manufacturing a pistol to fire a .223 Remmington is legal, but shortening an AR-15 is not. Perhaps if they only exempted revolvers it would make more sense.
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    That is false. The objective was to prevent the handgun ban from being circumvented. The handgun ban never became law but we're left with an oddball restriction around short barrels on rifles.

I dont think the pedestrian getting hit cares whether the car is 2,999lbs or 3,0001lbs.

by camdat 3y ago

I dont think the pedestrian getting hit cares whether the car is 2,999lbs or 3,0001lbs.

pc86 3y ago

I mean this is obviously false. The heavier a vehicle is, the slower it needs to be going to cause a certain amount of damage, up to and including death. How many pedestrians are hit every year? If you can lower the average weight of vehicles on the road you're directly saving lives.

tm-guimaraes 3y ago
not only that, but the height of the vehicle front also matters A LOT. A SUV is perfect for killing pedestrians, it has the perfect triple combo: * Weight * raised front to perfectly shatter a chest * low visibility for the perfect "i didn't saw him" excuse.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  The couple drivers I'd have to avoid as a pedestrian explained to me that they were not looking in the direction of travel. So I can't see what height or visibility would matter.
  - Symbiote 3y ago
    It's in the comment you're replying to > raised front to perfectly shatter a chest An SUV, pickup truck etc will hit an adult in the chest, and a child in the head, flinging them into the ground. That's often fatal. A sedan, station wagon, sports car etc will hit the person in the legs, scooping/rolling them over/around the car. This is less often fatal.
camdat 3y ago
This assumes two vehicles of similar dimensions. An aerodynamic 3,001lb vehicle would be much preferable to me than a 2,999lb flat-front. The physics imply only a portion of the heavier vehicles energy is imparted to me. I don't make the comment to argue that weight isn't meaningful, but to say that "lethality" of a vehicle has many factors.
- pc86 3y ago
  Yes it does, because we're talking about regulations that would cap the size of vehicle classes. You're not going to turn a 6,000lb F-150 into a 2,999lb truck, but you can shave 50 or 60 pounds off a vehicle. All else being equal, lighter = less deadly. That's all I'm saying.

sidewndr46 3y ago

I always think the same thing about federal gun restrictions in the US. I can't imagine someone getting shot and thinking "I'm so glad he didn't shoot me with a barrel shorter than 16 inches!!!"

tm-guimaraes 3y ago
the differencing between breaking a leg and dying are kinda big... Weight and frontal height are deciding factors on that.
aidenn0 3y ago
Clearly the barrel-length restrictions were intended to be about how easy they are to conceal. There was an attempt to draw a distinction between long-guns and hand-guns. The NFA ended up exempting pistols, which results in the strange situation where manufacturing a pistol to fire a .223 Remmington is legal, but shortening an AR-15 is not. Perhaps if they only exempted revolvers it would make more sense.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  That is false. The objective was to prevent the handgun ban from being circumvented. The handgun ban never became law but we're left with an oddball restriction around short barrels on rifles.